Jedi Council Forums - Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread)

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread)
Master_Keralys Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Oct '03	Date Posted: 12/7/08 2:24pm Subject: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread)
	I've now the time to go through these and hit the major points made by each poster. mrsvos - I like the suggestion of having a more hosted discussion on the book review threads, at least in theory. Thank you very much for the concrete suggestion; I think that helps a lot in any case to give us a better idea of what you'd like to see. Off the top of my head, I know for a fact I don't have time for that. There's a lot happening in Lit, and just trying to keep on top of everything going on, much less to that intensely moderate a book discussion, is simply not feasible. We'd probably have to add at least one and probably two more mods to have mods doing it. We can discuss the notion of having a regular, but VIP'd, user engage in that sort of thing, but the flipside is that said user has to consistently have the time to be ahead of everyone else on the book and the time to devote to hosting such a thing. In an environment like Lit where the spoilers are such a huge part of the fun for a lot of people - kind of like it was for everyone before RotS came out - it's much harder to have that sort of a discussion when a lot of people just want to know what happens. And a lot of people are at a point where they'll use such discussions of what happens as something of a guide to whether they really want to buy the book/comic/etc. if it lies outside their primary area of interest. So while I like the book club idea, I think doing it as beccatoria has been, though possibly a bit more aggressively, might be a great idea, as opposed to doing it with new book releases. I think that doing that with new book releases might stifle a lot of very good things that happen with the existing style, and I think there might be more effective ways - harder moderation, as suggested by others, for one thing - to eliminate some of the problems. It might be worth looking into changing up the way we handle releases, spoilers, etc. in any case. On that note - Dingo even if you just want to PM me your thoughts on that, we as mods would be happy to hear what you have to say regarding spoilers. Also - I just want to say that, slight disagreements about impact aside, I think you're dead on as regards the authors (Karen Traviss, Drew Karphyshyn, or whoever else) and Lit. You, too, Rhonderoo. I think we've been trying too hard to let it be a place where opinions can be expressed and in letting it go so far as we have, it's hurt Lit. Now, the difficulty is that I think people have a right to be seriously up in arms about things of this nature - about the canon issues, even about the way that authors have responded when criticisms were raised (and I'm really not thinking anyone in particular here) - but Lit, frankly, is being hurt by this being the place to do that. I really do like the idea of saying, "Guys, while I can understand your needing to vent frustrations, please take it offsite." I do agree that we need to do a better job of just editing people and banning them. Thanks for pointing that out. We're actively discussing the soapboxing issue, and we'll be updating the Code to reflect the consensus we're developing in short order. On that note, we're also going to be giving the Code more teeth, per the discussion here. We are going to be actively editing and as necessary banning people. Otherwise, the Code is - as you all pointed out - completely useless. I think upping our use of hosted discussions is a really good idea, and it's something a few of us have been moving towards in any case, so I think that's something we can look into. Thanks for mentioning it. Re: IU Discussion - we're looking very hard at ways of accomplishing this, both from the standpoint of moderation and from the standpoint of generating these kinds of discussions ourselves. I actually PM'd 17 of our regulars, ranging across the entire spectrum of Lit posters, to get feedback on the initial idea I posted in the other thread, and are taking their responses into consideration as we look how to go forward. In short, we will probably be both actively promoting IU discussion as well as seriously curtailing OOU discussion right now. We're basically trying to work out a few kinks and logistical issues related to that. TNPredsFan - yeah, dead on regarding the people posting the same thing in multiple places. We have been and are continuing to try to figure out how to address that more effectively. We're willing to do a lot on it, but it's rather difficult to ban someone for posting habits that are just dumb or annoying, rather than actually against the rules. However, if we make that part of our new tooth-enhanced-Code, that may be less an issue. The problem, as Havac notes, is that we don't want it to be a situation where it's all just a judgment call for the mods. We're quite fallible, too, alas. I'll probably invite some of the Lit regulars to join this conversation, and I've already been in contact with them via PM about some of the things we've discussed. I want you guys to know that I have spent hours on this over the last week, a lot of hours, and that less than two weeks before finals. I care a lot about this, and I'm working hard on it - and the same is true for Havac and others. I've been doing a lot of this angle, and Havac has been actively posting and then directing some very good IU threads of the sort we've discussed. TKeiraLee and Rhonda's final post - yeah, I think putting teeth into the Code, as we already have that provision present, will take care of that particular issue. We just need to enforce what we already have. I've a bad feeling this was a big tl;dr. Not any other good way to do it, though. -----signature----- God made man. Man rejected God. God became the man Jesus Christ, died and rose again to life, saving man from himself. The craziest story ever told. The truest.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedi Trace Title: • SouthEast RSA • FanFiction Manager Registered: Dec '99	Date Posted: 12/7/08 2:35pm Subject: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread)
	I typed this before I saw your last post, Keralys, and it’s probably repetitive, so feel free not to respond. Several people have already said what I was thinking and I’ll back them up here, but I think the most concrete suggestion that has been made so far is to Stay On Topic. EU readers want to talk about the EU and the ability to do so is what will draw people in and keep them active in the forum. mrsvos posted: Perhaps there should be 2 book discussion threads - one for people who actually want to talk about the book and one for those who just want to bitch. Taking it a step further: One thread for discussion, one for griping and one for speculation. Seriously, though, there is a time and place for rampant speculation before and after a book is released. However, once a book is on the shelves, the speculation needs to die down for a bit so people who’ve read the book can discuss the actual contents of the book. It’s very trendy to come up with the latest “ewok-worthy” fan speculation/theory/crack idea, but I totally get what mrsvos is saying in that people who ask legitimate questions or try to discuss the book are often ignored or trampled over by posts still in speculation mode about topics that may or may not have anything to do with the actual book itself. I like the way the DHC board handles this. There is a discussion/speculation thread for each book before the release. But, on the day of the release, there is a new sticky discussion thread started for people who have read the book. It may or may not be feasible here, but it works very well over there. rhonderoo posted: Also, KOTOR. I realize a lot of fans play the game and read the comics. There is a place for discussion in Games for the game. The discussion in Lit should remain mostly on the comic. I realize there are things are inter-changable in the discussion, but when we're speculating on a game character and the discussion is hard for those who don't read the comics to follow, it should be gently directed back to the comics discussion. Perfect example of how users and mods alike can be more proactive to Stay On Topic. This is a personal peeve of mine, sorry, but it is nigh impossible to discuss a KotOR comic book because every thread turns into discussion about the game, the events surrounding the game and which character in the comic might turn into Darth Whoever from the game. TKeira_Lea posted: rhonderoo posted: Can we have a rule that if you have not read the material being discussed or you aren't up to speed on the storyline, you aren't allowed to keep critiquing the subject matter? And I don't think that's asking too much. I'll second that. I’ll third it. And fourth it. Posts that start with “I haven’t read this, but” (especially when followed by “and I won’t read it”) should be discouraged as legitimate critique. -----signature----- "Luke Skywalker kicks ass. Next question." - Tom Taylor "Sometimes bad guys are the only good guys you get." - Leverage
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Havac Title: Lit Mod of War Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 12/7/08 2:45pm Subject: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread) - Date Edited: 12/7/08 3:16pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Havac
	rhonderoo posted: I'll try to be more concrete. We have users in Lit who are unhappy with the way things are going in EU. They didn't like LOTF, or they don't like the way a certain character's legacy is going, etc. This isn't the whole Lit forum, and it's not fair to paint the whole forum with this brush, BUT you have enough of those users that aren't happy with "their" character not being used in the Legacy era or "their" character's order being mishandled, any of those type situations that it starts to make the place more negative. I know for a fact that some of these users say they aren't reading EU anymore, or they stopped at issue X, when so and so was killed, or when they stopped seeing their favorite character in books....yet they STILL come into discussion threads and state the same opinion OVER and OVER again, the artists and authors defend themselves, deflect criticisms, explain the realities of the business...lather, rinse and repeat. Can we have a rule that if you have not read the material being discussed or you aren't up to speed on the storyline, you aren't allowed to keep critiquing the subject matter? And I don't think that's asking too much. If I stopped reading Legacy comics at issue 14, I have no business in the thread hassling current fans over what's going on in the story. That's a clear case of warn, edit, then ban. Period. We don't need those kinds of posters. Let's say we make this a concrete rule. Joe Poster, who trade-waits KOTOR, sees someone post spoilers for the latest issue and says, "You say Zayne did X? I don't think I care for that; it seems out of character for him." Would he get edited? Joe Poster doesn't follow Rebellion because he doesn't have the money to spend on it, but he checks in on the issue threads to see what's happening. There he posts, "Man, I really wish they had more stories about other characters. I'm sick of the big three. If they had more stories about new characters I could care about, I think I'd start picking this up." Does he get edited? Joe Poster doesn't follow LOTF (really, what does this guy read?) but he reads the Revelation thread and says, "Aww, man, it sucks they killed Pellaeon. He was one of my favorite characters." Does he get edited? Joe Poster hasn't read Dark Empire, but he chimes in on a discussion to say, "Fundamentally, I think the whole premise of bringing Palpatine back is a bad idea, as it undercuts the triumph of ROTJ." Does he get edited? Joe Poster sees spoilers in a future thread, and reads them, and reacts, and posts, "Luke gets killed by a hamster? That's dumb." Does he get edited?" They're all criticisms by someone who hasn't read it. But really, they're not harmful, vitriol-laden criticisms. Do we really want to say, "If you haven't read something, you're not allowed to have even the slightest negative opinion of it, no matter how much material you've actually seen about it?" What about people who express positive opinions about things before reading them? What about people who just don't say they haven't read it? What about people who express their opinions as the tentative, based-on-the-information-they-have impressions that they are? I don't think this would work as a concrete rule. I think, again, we're coming back to the idea not of what's acceptable, period, but of what's too much. What's excessive. And that's subjective, judgment-call area. I'm OK with that. I've said in MS, discussing this, that I think we should step up and be proactive about saying, "OK, that's enough. Let's redirect conversation." But I don't think we can pretend this is a matter of clear-cut right-and-wrong posting, or that we're going to be able to really stop people being negative without creating an equally unhealthy oppressive atmosphere in Lit. We can curb it, and encourage people to move on and post constructively, but we can't enforce positivity without becoming the thought police. rhonderoo posted: Also, KOTOR. I realize a lot of fans play the game and read the comics. There is a place for discussion in Games for the game. The discussion in Lit should remain mostly on the comic. I realize there are things are inter-changable in the discussion, but when we're speculating on a game character and the discussion is hard for those who don't read the comics to follow, it should be gently directed back to the comics discussion. Again, this is another thing I don't think is too workable. Lit is about discussing all the EU. If people want to talk about how that can tie in, well, we can't stop it unless it becomes a hugely distracting tangent. If that annoys people who don't play the game, that's no fun, but . . . how is it any different from people in the Rebel Force thread talking about how it ties in with Last of the Jedi or Marvel, or people in the FOTJ thread talking about links to Legacy and LOTF, or any other discussion of the intertwined EU? This, I'm going to say, is a personal annoyance that is unfortunate, but it's not really anything that's mod-able. EDIT: rhonderoo posted: At no time should what she said offsite matter here unless she's on here bothering posters here. Mod here, about things said here. And the rest should be about the material. But what about when her friends link to material she posted offsite and say, "Hey, read this, I think you'll find it instructive"? What about when people discuss comments people have made offsite about, say, timeline issues as indicative of what direction the Clone Wars show is going with continuity? What's the fundamental difference between discussing Sue's posts on her Star Wars blog and Paul Kemp's posts on his Livejournal? What's the difference between discussing statements Tim Zahn makes in an interview and statements Karen Traviss makes in her website's FAQ? Why shouldn't people be able to talk about public statements authors have made when discussing their authorial style, how they write their books, what characters they feature, what their future work is likely to be like? I realize it upsets people to see authors they like criticized. But we have to allow criticism; the key thing in Lit is making sure that it's criticism of their writing, and not personal criticism, and we do that in Lit. But if we can discuss people's writing, why can't we take statements they make into account? No one objects to talking about statements from Tim Zahn or Mike Stackpole or Matt Stover to get insight into their writing; why object to statements about Traviss, other than that she's a hot-button issue? Shouldn't we just moderate the statements to be sure the controversy doesn't turn into acrimony instead of just forbidding discussion entirely? I'm annoyed with relentless Traviss-bashing too. I'm annoyed with people repeating themselves over and over and over about the same one thing. I'm annoyed with people who gave up twenty books ago showing up and harping about the current work they didn't read. I'm annoyed with the relentless negativity that doesn't know when it's said enough. But the answer is in curbing things, and keeping things in check, and discouraging excess, and trying to get people to see when they don't need to repeat themselves. It's not in banning whole topics, and shutting down whole avenues of discussion, and regulating what opinions people are allowed to express. -----signature----- "Is there a captain's hat involved in this?"
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
rhonderoo Title: Former Head Admin Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 12/7/08 4:15pm Subject: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread) - Date Edited: 12/7/08 4:19pm (1 edits total) Edited By: rhonderoo
	Havac posted: I'm annoyed with relentless Traviss-bashing too. I'm annoyed with people repeating themselves over and over and over about the same one thing. I'm annoyed with people who gave up twenty books ago showing up and harping about the current work they didn't read. I'm annoyed with the relentless negativity that doesn't know when it's said enough. But the answer is in curbing things, and keeping things in check, and discouraging excess, and trying to get people to see when they don't need to repeat themselves. It's not in banning whole topics, and shutting down whole avenues of discussion, and regulating what opinions people are allowed to express. None of this is hard and fast rule-making. TFN has never been all black and white in its rule-making (all you have to do is go back a page or two in Comms to see that). I don't think anyone here has said make these black and white rules, but it will mean more moderation. You'll have to take that poster that is repeating themselves ad nauseum aside via PM and say, "That's enough. If you can't contribute to the discussion in a positive way, no matter what opinion you have, you need to stay away from this discussion." You'll have to tell people that they've made their point, now move on. And they might get pissed and "stay away forevar!1 Just like I've done to the EU!1", then maybe the place will be better for it. From what I can tell you guys don't like those type of posts, and your hearing now that a lot of others don't like that. And you guys can control a lot of this, I think by moderating these discussion (in the true sense of moderation, not the TFN position), and putting more guidelines in the book discussions. I can appreciate that it's tough when you're trying to make things more specific, but I don't think a re-write of the Lit rules are the answer, anyway. People are generally good in there and you guys catch as much of the real TOS violations as you can. I think putting teeth in the CoC is a good first step, just like any forum, you'll have to make judgment calls on the direction a thread or discussion is taking, but you guys are knowledgeable on the subject matter and have shown yourselves to be capable of shutting down negativity or over-reaction in a lot of situations. I think limiting the review discussions and breaking out speculation is another good idea. And when we say that people who haven't read material shouldn't be discussing it, we're not talking about those who can make a comment or ask a question and go about their business or can be a positive contributor to the discussion. I'm pretty sure you guys know the specific type users we are referencing, if not the specific users, and it's within your power to turn those discussions away from that. Even in talking about a game character in a Lit forum, I don't think anyone is asking for a rule that states you can't do it, just make the discussion one that everyone can enjoy for the most part... you know what they say, anything in moderation is fine. I think it's all going to boil down to more judgment calls, and I know you guys work hard in there, so please don't take this all as an attack on the moderation. I'd say Lit is probably the most important forum on these boards. It's where you'll get most of your new users, it's where the action is still going on when it comes to new releases and things for SW fans to be excited about and when we look at growing the JC or keeping it steady, it should be forum #1 to "invest" in. -----signature----- DT421 FYI: You don't deal with me. I deal with you. Damned right the Jedi's fire has gone out of the universe. I was the bad-ass Class C extinguisher who snuffed them. - @darthvader (Darth Vader on Twitter)
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
mrsvos Registered: Nov '05	Date Posted: 12/7/08 4:22pm Subject: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread)
	I did mention users taking turns hosting the book discussions. User hosting has worked well in The Amphitheater. -----signature----- It's not so much emotional baggage, as it's a bunch of overstuffed black hefty bags in the trunk of my car.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Master_Keralys Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Oct '03	Date Posted: 12/7/08 4:31pm Subject: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread) - Date Edited: 12/7/08 4:34pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Master_Keralys
	I've only time for one more brief comment, and that's on KotOR. Trace, I think, hits closer to the real issue than Rhonderoo - sorry! - for the simple matter that we do need to make sure the comics discussion is more about the comics than the games, and it can sometimes go awry. The problem is, as Havac rather accurately put it, that it's not really terribly different from the speculation in the LSatSoM thread about whethe these three characters are the same. I understand the frustration, trust me... I get sick of hearing "Zayne = Revan!!!11!!one!!" and all the other assorted stuff. On the other hand, when you have a number of direct game references done by the author, why is that not up for legitimate discussion? It's almost like saying, "Hey, guys, we know that you're all excited about who might be who in Episode I that shows up in the OT, but you're not allowed to talk about it anymore." I think we can try to curb it a bit, but really, why the hating on the games? They're as much a part of the EU as the comics are, and frankly a lot more people have played KotOR than are reading it. (Not saying that's a good or a bad thing, but it is true.) Yes, there's discussion of KotOR in the games section - but they're not discussing it as part of the EU, there; they're discussing it as a game. And that's all well and good, but it's part of the EU, and there's no reason it shouldn't be part of the discussion of the EU. There's a reason that Kyle Katarn has gotten larger and larger parts in books, and it's not that he's so overwhelmingly popular in the games section (though he is fairly well liked there). It's because EU fans love Kyle Katarn (even if we're occasionally sick of hearing about how "awesome" he is ). I think we can and should try to make sure that threads aren't overrun by speculation about who is whom. On the other hand, we need to get that, both for the fans and the author (and it's important to note that this is true for JJM, not just fans!), as much as KotOR the comic is Zayne and company's story, it's also very much a prequel to the games. It's set in the same era, plays with a lot of the same characters, and has given us some really important information about the history of the game characters. It's the game's sandbox, too. :-) I'll be back tomorrow to address other/more stuff. Tonight I have homework and work and talking to my family to do. (Wait, a JC mod has a life? ) ETA: mrsvos - yeah, and I think that would be more doable, but I still don't think it's the way to go for initial release discussion. It'd be like requiring people to only participate in a guided discussion in the RotS forum when RotS came it. It just doesn't make sense to me. I do think having a lot more of that sort of thing for other books is great, but I think it would work very badly for initial release threads. That doesn't mean we're not willing to overhaul those threads, and I will be overruled if the other mods think it's a good idea. I just don't think it would have a positive effect on the atmosphere in Lit, or help stimulate good discussion on new releases. Perhaps it might make sense to do so starting two weeks after release, or some such... but I want people to be able to just enjoy the craziness of finding out stuff and posting back and forth crazily without having to be "on-topic" in more than a general sense. I recognize that it has some weaknesses, but that's one of the most fun things happening in Lit right now, and I don't want to kill that while trying to fix some of the attendant problems. -----signature----- God made man. Man rejected God. God became the man Jesus Christ, died and rose again to life, saving man from himself. The craziest story ever told. The truest.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Bly Registered: Mar '05	Date Posted: 12/7/08 4:52pm Subject: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread) - Date Edited: 12/7/08 4:54pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Bly
	Just a warning, my posts aren't nearly as long as the ones the rest of you guys have done, so my suggestions are going to seem rather vague. In any event, IMO, it all comes down to how much power we give the moderators. The code of conduct is nice and all, but the simple fact of the matter is that the majority of the users in the Lit forum don't have enough self-control to keep themselves under control. For every guy who says "hmmm, Mandalorian culture has changed quite a bit...I'm not sure if it's for the better," you get five who say "OMG Traviss Mandos are teh suck!1!" The internet permits people to be anonymous, and that anonymity is...well, warping, for lack of a better term. Whereas in real life, people are expected to present their arguments politely and provide support, on the Internet, that's not a given, and Lit has suffered because of that. I guess what I'm saying is that we need some way to enforce the CoC. Whether that means increasing the Mods' powers or what, I don't know. All I know is that we need to keep the denizens of Lit in line, somehow. -----signature----- "Get the order and execute it. Let the Generals sort out the rest." -Commander Bly Proud recepient of Thrawn McEwok's Bronze Thranta™ "Politics is simply the continuation of war by other means." -Mandalore the Ultimate C/TSgt in the Civil Air Patrol
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Rogue_Follower Title: Manager: • Lit Registered: Nov '03	Date Posted: 12/7/08 4:59pm Subject: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread)
	Here's my stance on some stuff that's been mentioned: First, I am not in favor of eliminating video game discussion from Lit. The name is Literature, but the reality is that we're a place for discussing the entire Expanded Universe. Arguably, KotOR is a lot more significant to the EU than half the novels released this year. So, game-related discussion is appropriate, so long as it sticks to story elements and not gameplay elements. And, honestly, I don't think the discussion that we do can be just translated into Games---in my experience it's an entirely different atmosphere and community. Second, we can't ignore/restrict authors' off-site content. Some authors, such as John Jackson Miller, have commentary on their website that's very interesting and pertinent to our discussions. If, say, Traviss' posts on her FAQ made Litizens angry, that's not our fault. It's her choice to post that type of thing in the public domain, for better or worse. Now, ideally, Traviss' FAQ really shouldn't be brought up much, because it's just not relevant to the stuff that should be the focus in Lit. And if it is, we should keep it under control, just like any other controversial nugget of information. Third, as Havac says, criticism that comes without having read the book (or comic, or whatever) can still be legitimate criticism. I'm in favor of cracking down, but I do not agree with banning it outright. The example of a hamster killing Luke may sound silly, but we deal with stuff like that just about every book nowadays (e.g. "Daala is now the CoS of the Galactic Alliance", "Darth Vader founded the Rebellion", etc.) We need to make sure that pre-release whining doesn't take over the threads, but we also recognize that sometimes you can judge a book by it's summary. Our job is not to eliminate criticism. Our job is to prevent it from getting out of hand. IMHO. That said, I agree that the "serial-haters" need to be reigned in. If a user doesn't do anything but whinge about a certain topic, then they need to be told to reduce their bitching or stay away from the topic. Some other stuff: Re: Author interviews: we've discussed this a bit in Mod Squad and we agree that doing some author interviews would be great. We haven't yet worked out the how and when, though. Also, I'm open to the idea of having separate continuity discussion threads. It seems to be working well for our Clone Wars TV series coverage, and I think we could easily make it work for novels. For example, rather than just having "The Official [Novel] Discussion Thread", we could have "The Official [Novel] Discussion Thread" and "The Official [Novel] Continuity Discussion Thread." If that seems like too many stickies, then we could have the main thread stickied, and the continuity thread "loose." I think this would help barricade off a large portion of the, er, overly enthusiastic discussion we get. More later...
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
rhonderoo Title: Former Head Admin Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 12/7/08 5:00pm Subject: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread) - Date Edited: 12/7/08 5:18pm (3 edits total) Edited By: rhonderoo
	Again, I don't think anyone is talking about changing Lit rules, here. So why would you make it a concrete rule that someone can't discuss the game? If the discussion is one where it only gets sidetracked for a limited amount of time, or others can join in, no big deal. It appears you guys are thinking we're saying you can only have it one way or the other, when we're not. You're using words like "eliminating game discussion" or "banning" people who have not read material outright from the discussion. Maybe I'm having trouble clarifying what I mean by the softer element of modding, I dunno. What we are saying (or I am, anyway), that this means more moderation and judgment calls on the mods part in a discussion. Actually, Lit users should expect that. If you don't like the way a conversation is going or think it's bad, it is absolutely your prerogative (one might even say duty) to re-direct it. That doesn't mean make a rule for every bothersome thing, but it does mean crack down on the folks doing it repetitively and set a standard of posting for everyone. Edit: Clarified my bold part as it confused even me. -----signature----- DT421 FYI: You don't deal with me. I deal with you. Damned right the Jedi's fire has gone out of the universe. I was the bad-ass Class C extinguisher who snuffed them. - @darthvader (Darth Vader on Twitter)
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Havac Title: Lit Mod of War Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 12/7/08 5:03pm Subject: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread) - Date Edited: 12/7/08 5:09pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Havac
	I agree with Keralys on the workability of guided official book discussion threads. The mods will be moderating the threads; that should be all the guidance they really need. rhonderoo posted: Havac posted: I'm annoyed with relentless Traviss-bashing too. I'm annoyed with people repeating themselves over and over and over about the same one thing. I'm annoyed with people who gave up twenty books ago showing up and harping about the current work they didn't read. I'm annoyed with the relentless negativity that doesn't know when it's said enough. But the answer is in curbing things, and keeping things in check, and discouraging excess, and trying to get people to see when they don't need to repeat themselves. It's not in banning whole topics, and shutting down whole avenues of discussion, and regulating what opinions people are allowed to express. None of this is hard and fast rule-making. TFN has never been all black and white in its rule-making (all you have to do is go back a page or two in Comms to see that). I don't think anyone here has said make these black and white rules, but it will mean more moderation. You'll have to take that poster that is repeating themselves ad nauseum aside via PM and say, "That's enough. If you can't contribute to the discussion in a positive way, no matter what opinion you have, you need to stay away from this discussion." You'll have to tell people that they've made their point, now move on. And they might get pissed and "stay away forevar!1 Just like I've done to the EU!1", then maybe the place will be better for it. From what I can tell you guys don't like those type of posts, and your hearing now that a lot of others don't like that. And you guys can control a lot of this, I think by moderating these discussion (in the true sense of moderation, not the TFN position), and putting more guidelines in the book discussions. I can appreciate that it's tough when you're trying to make things more specific, but I don't think a re-write of the Lit rules are the answer, anyway. People are generally good in there and you guys catch as much of the real TOS violations as you can. I think putting teeth in the CoC is a good first step, just like any forum, you'll have to make judgment calls on the direction a thread or discussion is taking, but you guys are knowledgeable on the subject matter and have shown yourselves to be capable of shutting down negativity or over-reaction in a lot of situations. I think limiting the review discussions and breaking out speculation is another good idea. And when we say that people who haven't read material shouldn't be discussing it, we're not talking about those who can make a comment or ask a question and go about their business or can be a positive contributor to the discussion. I'm pretty sure you guys know the specific type users we are referencing, if not the specific users, and it's within your power to turn those discussions away from that. Even in talking about a game character in a Lit forum, I don't think anyone is asking for a rule that states you can't do it, just make the discussion one that everyone can enjoy for the most part... you know what they say, anything in moderation is fine. I think it's all going to boil down to more judgment calls, and I know you guys work hard in there, so please don't take this all as an attack on the moderation. I'd say Lit is probably the most important forum on these boards. It's where you'll get most of your new users, it's where the action is still going on when it comes to new releases and things for SW fans to be excited about and when we look at growing the JC or keeping it steady, it should be forum #1 to "invest" in. I'm absolutely ready to intervene more and say, "Hey, let's limit this. OK, enough of this argument," if that's what you're saying is called for. I think it's called for too. But I'm wary of overreaction and cracking down on too much in an attempt to clean up one problem that just switches one malaise for another. Mostly, though, I'm confused; I see a lot of talk about the big fundamental problem of negativity, how it has to stop, how things need to change, but the suggestion seems mostly to be "Do what you're doing; just do it more." Is that really the extent of the proposed fix? Because we can do that. But I want to make sure I'm not missing anything here. That's why I still like ideas; even things like the guided discussion, which we've decided seems kind of impractical -- it's good just to have that. It's good to consider it. There may be other, similar ideas it sparks. Even if we have to end up saying, "No, that's not a rule we can enforce," it helps to have in mind that maybe this or that kind of posting ought to be discouraged, this or that tangent might have to be headed off sooner. EDIT: and to Roo's last post: that's where some of the confusion is coming in here, though. We've got people saying, "X, Y, and Z are problems and they need to be stopped." And we say, "Well, we can't really stop that." And then the response is, "Well, I don't mean ban it, just cut down on the more extreme stuff and make a few more judgment calls when it's too much." And now we're both on the same page. But before that was made clear, it looked like a sharper stance was being suggested. Now that we're clear on where you are, I think, yes, we're both on the same page. -----signature----- "Is there a captain's hat involved in this?"
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Bly Registered: Mar '05	Date Posted: 12/7/08 5:05pm Subject: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread)
	rhonderoo posted: We ARE saying, (even Bly from what I can see) that this means more moderation and judgment calls on the mods part in a discussion. That is exactly what I'm saying; my apologies if I came across as unclear. -----signature----- "Get the order and execute it. Let the Generals sort out the rest." -Commander Bly Proud recepient of Thrawn McEwok's Bronze Thranta™ "Politics is simply the continuation of war by other means." -Mandalore the Ultimate C/TSgt in the Civil Air Patrol
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
rhonderoo Title: Former Head Admin Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 12/7/08 5:24pm Subject: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread)
	I understood you loud and clear, Bly. Havac, it looks like we're on the same page. I don't think you can make hard, fast rules, but I do think you can take the harder stance on the repeat offenders, or the situations that become extreme. In other words, I think it's perfectly fair to get tougher on people that don't listen when you guys redirect - even use the ban button. Or post in a way that they know you guys discourage, especially when they do it repeatedly and in a number of threads. -----signature----- DT421 FYI: You don't deal with me. I deal with you. Damned right the Jedi's fire has gone out of the universe. I was the bad-ass Class C extinguisher who snuffed them. - @darthvader (Darth Vader on Twitter)
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedi Trace Title: • SouthEast RSA • FanFiction Manager Registered: Dec '99	Date Posted: 12/7/08 8:58pm Subject: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread) - Date Edited: 12/7/08 10:40pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Jedi Trace
	Havac posted: Joe Poster, who trade-waits KOTOR, sees someone post spoilers for the latest issue and says, "You say Zayne did X? I don't think I care for that; it seems out of character for him." Would he get edited? Joe Poster doesn't follow Rebellion because he doesn't have the money to spend on it, but he checks in on the issue threads to see what's happening. There he posts, "Man, I really wish they had more stories about other characters. I'm sick of the big three. If they had more stories about new characters I could care about, I think I'd start picking this up." Does he get edited? Joe Poster doesn't follow LOTF (really, what does this guy read?) but he reads the Revelation thread and says, "Aww, man, it sucks they killed Pellaeon. He was one of my favorite characters." Does he get edited? Joe Poster hasn't read Dark Empire, but he chimes in on a discussion to say, "Fundamentally, I think the whole premise of bringing Palpatine back is a bad idea, as it undercuts the triumph of ROTJ." Does he get edited? Joe Poster sees spoilers in a future thread, and reads them, and reacts, and posts, "Luke gets killed by a hamster? That's dumb." Does he get edited?" That is very true and those are all good examples of ideal non-reader responses. And then there's: "Pellaeon's death is a travesty! It's disrespectful to Tim Zahn and Pellaeon fans. The author is a hack with his/her own agenda and should never write Star Wars again," repeated daily by Joe Poster (who still refuses to read the book) in related and unrelated threads for the next six months. -----signature----- "Luke Skywalker kicks ass. Next question." - Tom Taylor "Sometimes bad guys are the only good guys you get." - Leverage
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
rhonderoo Title: Former Head Admin Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 12/8/08 7:55am Subject: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread)
	Jedi Trace posted: Havac posted: Joe Poster, who trade-waits KOTOR, sees someone post spoilers for the latest issue and says, "You say Zayne did X? I don't think I care for that; it seems out of character for him." Would he get edited? Joe Poster doesn't follow Rebellion because he doesn't have the money to spend on it, but he checks in on the issue threads to see what's happening. There he posts, "Man, I really wish they had more stories about other characters. I'm sick of the big three. If they had more stories about new characters I could care about, I think I'd start picking this up." Does he get edited? Joe Poster doesn't follow LOTF (really, what does this guy read?) but he reads the Revelation thread and says, "Aww, man, it sucks they killed Pellaeon. He was one of my favorite characters." Does he get edited? Joe Poster hasn't read Dark Empire, but he chimes in on a discussion to say, "Fundamentally, I think the whole premise of bringing Palpatine back is a bad idea, as it undercuts the triumph of ROTJ." Does he get edited? Joe Poster sees spoilers in a future thread, and reads them, and reacts, and posts, "Luke gets killed by a hamster? That's dumb." Does he get edited?" That is very true and those are all good examples of ideal non-reader responses. And then there's: "Pellaeon's death is a travesty! It's disrespectful to Tim Zahn and Pellaeon fans. The author is a hack with his/her own agenda and should never write Star Wars again," repeated daily by Joe Poster (who still refuses to read the book) in related and unrelated threads for the next six months. Absolutely. Great example of the difference between adding your thoughts and moving on (I would say if Joe Poster in Havac's example takes up this charge repeatedly to anyone who will listen, he then becomes a problem), and beating your thoughts into the brains of every poster who reads Lit threads on subjects you are obviously way too emotionally attached to to discuss rationally. A lot of times, it's that vocal minority that turns people off. -----signature----- DT421 FYI: You don't deal with me. I deal with you. Damned right the Jedi's fire has gone out of the universe. I was the bad-ass Class C extinguisher who snuffed them. - @darthvader (Darth Vader on Twitter)
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Master_Keralys Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Oct '03	Date Posted: 12/8/08 3:18pm Subject: Lit discussion (continued from JC Suggestions thread)
	Right on, to Trace, Rhonderoo, and Havac. I want to find ways to encourage that sort of Joe Poster posting, as opposed to the annoying, turns-people-away variety of Joe Poster posting. Thanks for the feedback; we are taking and running with it. -----signature----- God made man. Man rejected God. God became the man Jesus Christ, died and rose again to life, saving man from himself. The craziest story ever told. The truest.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 » - Previous | Next | Reload